This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

In the section 'Importance to Relativity' it is assumed that absolute matter length can be known. This is not possible as we do not have access to a standard against which absolute length can be ascertained. RFNo (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I take it by the silence that no-one disagrees with my comment.RFNo (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The silence could also mean that no-one agrees, or sufficiently cares to respond. - DVdm (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, by our silence, we were hoping that you'd just shut up and disappear. It was evident from previous discussions with you that you have no understanding of relativity or the theory behind the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Stigmatella, that was not very pleasant. As you disagree with my criticism then I expect you to point out where we can find this length standard by which we may determine absolute distance. Substance rather than insults, please. RFNo (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Another possibility is that "in the section 'Importance to Relativity' it is" not "assumed that absolute matter length can be known," in which case your second sentence is moot. Indeed nowhere does the section say that "absolute matter length can be known", so your comment is not about the article but about the subject, or about your personal (mis)understanding of it. Alas, that is—per wp:talk page guidelines—off-topic. That is of course part of the reason why no-one replied. - DVdm (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

DVdm. As 'absolute' length cannot be known then there is no point whatever in having a paragraph which directly or indirectly refers to it. This can only be denied by pointing out the absolute standard. I am concerned and disappointed with the replies that I am getting. Both you and others seem to have the object to support the theory of Special Relativity even when there is no relevance or when it is entirely wrong to do so, when the object should be to give a NEUTRAL description of this experiment. In this you are denying the rules of Wiki.RFNo (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"'Absolute' length" is not mentioned, and even if it was mentioned, your objections to it would be off-topic. - DVdm (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

DVdm.The section states that alpha is determined which in turn determines beta. Thus the section states that length contraction (beta) has an absolute value.RFNo (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can only point you back to my previous reply. - DVdm (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

DVdm. I have refuted your previous reply. It is not me that is off topic but the whole paragraph and indeed the whole article. The KT experiment was designed to detect the Aether. It has no relevance to relativity whatsoever. This article is being misused contrary to Wiki policy as an advert for Relativity. Furthermore, it is not the only example of this misuse. I am disappointed that no other editor has come forward to support Wiki policy. I appeal to the higher authorities in Wiki to intervene in this matter.RFNo (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That is the way to go, because this is going nowhere. Don't forget to bring a significant number of solid sources to support your opinion and to counterbalance the scientific consensus that you see reflected here in Google Scholar and Google Books. And of course don't forget to also have a look at Wiki policy—see WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

DVdm. I only need one source and that is Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. In the KT experiment the relative velocity between observer (the experimenters) and the observed body (the apparatus) is zero. Hence there are no relativistic effects. This you well know. Yet you persist in denying it. The consequence is that Wiki readers are deceived by this article (and others). Wiki policy is to be neutral. The article is most definitely not neutral and neither do you appear to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFNo (talk • contribs) 11:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The (numerous) sources that refer to the KT experiment are describing it as a fundamental test of relativity. It doesn't matter whether you understand or accept this fact. --D.H (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

D.H. So, although it is logically impossible that the KT experiment could be a test of relativity you are prepared to hunt out some sources that say it is. You are denying the Wiki readers a true understanding of the KT experiment for an opportunity to thrust relativity upon them. Simply put, this is immoral. RFNo (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not immoral. Wikipedia policy. Standard scientific consensus takes precedence over our personal sense of logic. There is nothing we can do about that. When we think that standard scientific consensus is wrong, then we must go elsewhere. - DVdm (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

DVdm. All velocity is measured relative to something. If it is measured relative to the Aether it is called absolute velocity. If to any arbitrary IRF it is called relative velocity. If that is not scientific consensus then please show me why. The problem with the KT paper is that it employs a velocity which is absolute velocity BUT it calls it RELATIVE velocity. This leads to great confusion. Now Wiki can perpetuate that confusion (as it does) OR it can remove that confusion in the interests of the reader. So, is it Wiki policy to confuse the reader when it can avoid doing so? The least the article might do is to point out the reason for the confusion. Your attitude appears to be that you carefully choose which Wiki policies to hide behind for the purpose of perpetuating a false Wiki article. RFNo (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but "to point out the reason for the confusion" is original research—see wp:OR—and that is, alas, forbidden here. - DVdm (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)